(Original post by Wez)
I know you were originally making a claim about the views of the majority of the Israeli population (any link btw, I find it hard to believe most Israelis are dumb enough to equate the UCU with neo-Nazis

I didn't say they equated them with neo-Nazis. I said they see them as being "as bad". And seeing that their actions can have much more of an impact on Israel, that's not difficult to explain.

(Original post by Wez)
However, do you personally really believe that the UCU are "are as bad as neo-Nazis"?

In how deranged, ignorant, deceitful and downright scummy they are? Reckon it's a close call.

I also watched the programme and I realy don't think british uni's are anti semitic, I just think there anti israel because of its role in paletine and the middle east, just like some people are anti america because of its foriegn policies. Even if isreal is the only jewish country in the world, but that doesnt mean that people are anti semitic just because they disagree with there goverment, its like saying people are anti christianity by not liking america, thats just ridiculous.

I posted something of a defence of consideration of this boycott, but to be honest I can't be bothered to justify the actions of a few leftist activists who have got a motion pushed through at congress that will not result in anything anyway. I find it funny how when the same things happen at political party conferences these things are rightly attributed not to the mainstream party membership but a vocal minority, it is exactly the same case here. It seems that people want to get upset over this issue simply as an excuse to bash the union(s), which is a great shame as it undermines the efforts made by individuals within the union to make progress on improving the situation in many parts of the world. Having been to UCU meetings there isn't a hope in hell of there actually being a boycott - the executive are against it and so are the vast majority of members. People just don't want to look at the facts and are ready to tar all of us with the same brush because of some ill-founded belief that academia in this country is anti-israel, anti-zionist and anti-semitic.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
I posted something of a defence of consideration of this boycott, but to be honest I can't be bothered to justify the actions of a few leftist activists who have got a motion pushed through at congress that will not result in anything anyway

Yeah, it's not like NAFTHE and the AUT managed to push through actual boycott motions before they merged... No wait, that's exactly what happened.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
I find it funny how when the same things happen at political party conferences these things are rightly attributed not to the mainstream party membership but a vocal minority, it is exactly the same case here.

Here the UCU representatives voted and decided upon this by a majority. If the majority of people at such conferences voted on such things, they wouldn't be called a minority.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
because of some ill-founded belief that academia in this country is anti-israel, anti-zionist and anti-semitic.

Yeah, the fact that academic unions keep trying to boycott Israel isn't a good foundation for the belief they're anti-Israel. Aha.

(Original post by JonathanH)
Yeah, it's not like NAFTHE and the AUT managed to push through actual boycott motions before they merged... No wait, that's exactly what happened.

The AUT decision was reversed by the members actually, however it was a very specific boycott based on certain specific actions that I feel violated the academic freedoms of the individual researchers at those institutions (I beleive there is a case to answer, but don't believe a boycott was the right course of action) - a completely different things to a general boycott because of perceived governmental transgressions. The NAFTHE boycott was a definite mistake and lessons have been learnt (however it was just a paper excerise and was never implemented by members anyway). The reason why these were pushed through was because of inactivity by members, that won't happen again.

Here the UCU representatives voted and decided upon this by a majority. If the majority of people at such conferences voted on such things, they wouldn't be called a minority.

They represent a minority of UCU members, remember this was at congress, not a general vote.

Yeah, the fact that academic unions keep trying to boycott Israel isn't a good foundation for the belief they're anti-Israel. Aha.

I'm not saying some aren't I'm saying that there is no consensus views in academia on this, so stating that academic are one thing or the other is simply wrong. The UCU and the AUT and NATFHE before it have strong supporters in both camps on this issue, yet nothing is made of the existance of the pro-israel lobby in these unions and the vast majority of members who disagree with any form of boycott. It seems that the internal wranglings of a union with some hard-line members is taken to be a blanket and universal position adopted by all its members when no decision has been reached and no general ballot has occured. When an actual boycott of israeli institutions is enacted by academics is when you have justification for saying that there is generally anti-israeli sentiment in the academic community, some members being allowed to issue a call for a debate on the idea of a boycott is hardly that outcome.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
however it was a very specific boycott based on certain specific actions that I feel violated the academic freedoms of the individual researchers at those institutions

Sorry, you think they had grounds to botcott those universities in their entirety because of allegations - allegations that said universities felt so strongly were unfounded they actually threatened legal action over?

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
The NAFTHE boycott was a definite mistake and lessons have been learnt

The lessons have been learnt? That's why we're now in this situation with the UCU?

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
The reason why these were pushed through was because of inactivity by members, that won't happen again.

It DID happen again! The "inactivity of members" of the UCU now means they're pushing the same ****. Trying to say it won't happen again whilst IT IS IN THE MIDDLE OF HAPPENING is not convicing.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
They represent a minority of UCU members, remember this was at congress, not a general vote.

Thus by your own admission, once again, inactivity has led to this. Which apprently (according to you) wouldn't happen again after NAFTHE.

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
so stating that academic are one thing or the other is simply wrong.

So the academic union doesn't speak for academia. Good to know - we can just ignore them then, right?

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
when no decision has been reached and no vote has occured.

The representatives of those members met and made such a decision via a vote.

(Original post by shady lane)
JonathanH: is it possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Jewish? Or against certain Israeli policies?

It is certainly possible to be anti-Japan without being anti-Japanese. You can hate Abe Shinzo and Aso Taro for all their denial about Ianfu (aka comfort women) and yet like Japanese pop. When you are talking about a country, it is very much concerned with that country's foreign policy, and that is determined in a large extent by the actions of a small cycle of top politicians of that country.

Also, even it was the terrorist group (what's the name again?) who started kidnapping the Israeli soldiers first, did that gave Israel the right to launch such a massive assault on Lebanon, and reduced many places to rubbles as seen in those Time/Newsweek magazines? I believe that China also did has some of its engineers and manual workers being kidnapped in Iraq, and subsequently killed. They still try to settle the matter diplomatically, instead of going military.

Finally, this is the issue that I am/was most confused about. Why did Israel go and attack and devastate Lebanon when it was not the Lebanon government that launched the kidnapping? It was the terrorist groups right? Why the Israel government can march right into their country? Because they have the might and force?

(Original post by spencer11111)
Finally, this is the issue that I am/was most confused about. Why did Israel go and attack and devastate Lebanon when it was not the Lebanon government that launched the kidnapping?

1. Hezbollah actually held seats in the Lebanese cabinet at the time.
2. Hezbollah effectively runs S Lebanon, not the Lebanese government.
3. Hezbollah has HQ, bunkers, stockpiles and positions, as a military does - it's not like fighting a terrorist organisation (though they are terrorists) as much as fighting a guerrilla army.

(Original post by JonathanH)
1. Hezbollah actually held seats in the Lebanese cabinet at the time.
2. Hezbollah effectively runs S Lebanon, not the Lebanese government.
3. Hezbollah has HQ, bunkers, stockpiles and positions, as a military does - it's not like fighting a terrorist organisation (though they are terrorists) as much as fighting a guerrilla army.

But it was still their country. Holding seats doesn't mean anything, certainly not control. Further more, it was the terrorist that was attacking Israel, Israel should try to work with the Lebanese government in doing counter-terrorism.

Israel made it so apparent that because it has the armed forces and the might, while Lebanon doesn't, it can sail right in and start all the assault, and bomb civilian buildings into rubbles.

If it is a group of Chinese terrorist who kidnapped Israeli soldiers, would Israel attack China with such visciousness and aggression, and bomb Shanghai and Beijing upside down?

Answer this question, with the knowledge that China has the army, ballistic missiles, and nuclear bomb.

[The same analogy applies. US invaded Iraq when there was actually no weapons, and didn't dare to attack North Korea, because it has nuclear bombs missiles.]

Why not - I think both are perverse, discriminatory and driven by irrational hatred.

(Original post by kizer)
I agree that unjustly boycotting academics is wrong. That doesn't mean I think it is as bad as genocide.

Didn't say it was as bad as genocide. It's a step on the way, it's not as bad. And no, I don't think genocide is imminent or going to happen. But boycotting Jews was one of the things the Nazis did on their way to it.